FAC hears enrollment gains, reserve questions and several legislative items at March meeting

At its March meeting, the Faculty/Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Connecticut Board of Regents met online to approve past minutes, review systemwide enrollment data and raise questions about the system’s reserve balance, and discuss several items now before the Connecticut General Assembly, including expansion of the Mary Anne Hanley award to the state universities and a higher-education bill on faculty ratios.

The discussion opened with procedural business: committee members moved to approve the December minutes and adopted the meeting agenda. The motion to approve the December minutes was moved by Laurie (committee member) and seconded by John (committee member); one speaker stated, “I abstain because I wasn’t there.” The agenda was moved by Mark (committee member) and seconded by Laurie and adopted with no further roll-call objections recorded in the transcript.

Committee members then summarized data presented earlier at the Academic and Student Affairs (ASA) meeting. Lloyd Blanchard, identified in the meeting as the system chief financial officer, was cited as attributing recent enrollment increases to a post-pandemic rebound. Highlights cited to the committee included: roughly one-third of CT State students are first-generation students, about one-quarter of university students are first-generation, the system is majority-minority, and around 42% of students systemwide receive Pell grants (44% at CT State community colleges, 43% at Charter Oak, 39% at the universities). Retention rates reported were 65% at CT State and 77% at the Connecticut State Universities (CSUs). The committee noted that CT State’s graduation rate (18%) is not directly comparable to the universities’ (50%) because of differences in student mix and part-time enrollment: systemwide about 34,000 of the roughly 64,000 students are part time, and two-thirds of CT State enrollments are part time.

The committee discussed the system’s reserve balance and how it is viewed by legislators and oversight officials. Charlene Casamento, identified in the meeting as the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) representative on the Board, was mentioned as questioning why the system maintains high reserves while seeking additional state funding. Committee members and student regents countered that campuses face pressing needs — broken elevators and unsafe building conditions were offered as examples — and that failing to address campus needs could increase future costs or legal exposure. FAC members said the discussion should separate capital projects from operating needs (for example, classroom resources and wraparound student services).

Legislative items were a major part of the conversation. Committee members reported that a bill to expand what was once called PACT (now referenced in the meeting as the Mary Anne Hanley award or MAHA) to include CSUs was receiving attention in the Higher Education Committee and had vocal support from system leadership. One committee member reported an Upjohn Institute study funded by an AFT national grant estimating the cost of the expansion under certain assumptions and said student interns were assisting the analysis. A committee member planned to testify in Hartford in favor of the expansion.

Members also raised other legislative proposals. The transcript records discussion of a bill that would require a cafeteria at every CT State campus (committee members said the proposal seemed to “go without saying,” but is nonetheless under consideration). A separate referenced proposal was a sugary-drink tax whose proceeds were discussed in the context of K–12 meal funding; some committee members said the tax’s proceeds might be relevant to addressing campus food insecurity if enacted, while others warned it could be regressive for low-income families.

SB 1414, a bill discussed at a higher-education committee hearing earlier in the week, would address the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty at CT State. Committee members said systemwide reliance on adjunct instructors is high (they cited figures suggesting some campuses approach or exceed 75% adjunct instruction) and argued that rebuilding full-time capacity should be a funding priority tied to reserve use. FAC members suggested that reserves could be targeted to restore full-time faculty, improve classroom resources, and reduce overreliance on part-time instructors.

The committee also discussed transfer policy and the work of the Transfer Council. A planned Transfer Council presentation was postponed because the presenter could not attend; FAC members decided to move the transfer discussion to the next meeting and to seek additional material between meetings. CSU representatives noted that differences in general-education design and the availability of assessment data at CT State complicate seamless credit transfer; CSUs report ongoing general-education assessment practices required by their accreditors, and FAC members said equivalent assessment data from CT State would be important to determine where course mismatches matter for program integrity.

In other business, FAC members reviewed a new governance committee (referred to in the meeting as the VOR governance committee) document that outlines roles and responsibilities of board members and said they may discuss it at a future meeting. The committee also began recruiting volunteers to run FAC elections for 2026–27 terms; members said election work is straightforward at universities and Charter Oak but more time-consuming at community colleges where the committee seeks campus-level representation. Jen (staff) and the meeting chair volunteered to help run the elections; Lois (committee member) also volunteered during the meeting.

The meeting closed after members confirmed plans for the next meeting, where transfer policy and related materials will be discussed.

Votes at a glance - Approved: Motion to approve December minutes (moved: Laurie; second: John). One abstention was recorded verbally (“I abstain because I wasn’t there.”). Exact roll-call tally not specified in the transcript. - Approved: Motion to adopt the meeting agenda (moved: Mark; second: Laurie). Exact roll-call tally not specified in the transcript.

Sources: FAC meeting transcript (March meeting), presentation materials referenced from the ASA packet, and members’ statements during the FAC meeting.